Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

Men and women submit directly to Christ, no man comes between woman and Christ. In the case of wives submitting to husbands, wives submit directly to both Christ and husband. If there is a discrepancy between Christ and husband such as the husband wants the wife to sin, the woman chooses Christ. Does anyone disagree over this?

Paul uses both terms "woman" and "women" in different contexts. "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes," 1 Timothy 2:9. Here, Paul is saying that all women should dress modestly. However, any man is not head of any woman. Women, submit to your fathers, brothers, etc. is not found in the Bible, let alone any other random man other than husband.

Wives submit to husbands. Why? Because a marriage between man and woman represents the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church. However, all social relationships do not reflect the relationship between Christ and Church. In the church, Christ is the head. Man and women make up the Bride of Christ. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.

While we know what Paul says, there are other instances in the Bible where women had authority over men. This has been discussed above. The first witnesses of the resurrection were women and they were the first to preach the Good News. People are quick to point that Priscilla is married, does that mean that married women can teach men? I do not believe that female pastors are being feminist trying to overthrow the authority of men. At the end of the day, female pastors are prayerful and responding to a calling. Anyone who knows a female pastor knows that she has prayed over this issue.

How is that having authority over men?

A woman sharing the gospel is not having authority over men.

It's hard for us to see that because pastors do not have authority over their congregations today. Pastors today are really little more than the head events planner for the church. They have no power over anyone in the congregation.

They think it's a calling. It's a personal desire, and in my experience one that is often rooted in a deep rebellion against and anger at men.

I don't question that for a minute. That doesn't mean they have God's approval to be in authority over men. Like all the rest of us, personal desires--especially emotionally charged ones--can lead us astray into thinking something is of the Lord when in reality it may not be (and vice versa for that matter).

All desire and ambition is to be measured against the Word, and the Word is very, very clear with no interpretation needed that women are not to be in authority over men. That means when the desire or ambition for a woman to assume a position of authority over man comes up it is to be put down in the same way, for example, a strong desire to divorce and remarry is to be instantly put down no matter how well you can rationalize it in your mind.

And your experience is what, exactly? You know perhaps a handful of women who are pastors? Even if some female pastors are wrongly motivated, that says nothing at all about all female pastors. Many male pastors are wrongly motivated too.

So... a woman who feels called to pastoring is "emotionally charged"? What a disgustingly sexist attitude!

That's your interpretation. Exalting it with fancy language doesn't make it valid.

Yes, yes, dino, we know, the scriptures don't really mean what they say.

The context is that female pastors must be okay, because they pray. The question shows this claim is a logical fallacy.

Which man, and which woman? The context is that women are not to have authority over men.

Again, the context was an argument stating that Zipporah's circumcision showed that women can have authority over men. Circumcision is not an authority issue, and is referenced in other historical texts, showing that women were not prohibited from circumcising, and that circumcision has nothing to do with male/female authority roles.

A much smaller assumption as those make who claim that as Priscilla was mentioned first, it proves she was in authority over Aquilla. If some must makes assumption; and they shouldn't; they could at least make assumptions that are consistent with the rest of scipture.

This is highlighting the fallacy that something is good or evil because of one's feelings. Feelings are irrelevant when determining good or evil.

The verses have been quoted numerous times. You are well aware of them, but try to make them say what they do not.

If Jesus' commandment in Matthew 19 is as close to a "commandment" as anyone needs, how much more Paul's instructions in 1 Tim 2:11 - 15, and chapter 3? Remember, God takes credit for giving King David Saul's wives, and Nathan never spoke to David about his multiple wives, only about his adultery (taking another man's wife).

Yet such a statement does not exist in 1 Corinthians 11 at all, so how can that be "the context"?

Please post them again; I don't recall seeing them.

24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:24–26)

Priscilla taught Apollos. Also, Priscilla is listed before Aquila, so she probably had some authority role over Aquila in some form. At a minimum, here, it is basically a literal reading that married women can teach other men.
Definition of "teach" (Google dictionary): show or explain to (someone) how to do something.

In the NT, a lot of the teaching is spreading the Gospel and talking about Jesus. It does not make sense that women can be missionaries and spread the Gospel to men, be church administrators, which are positions of authority since the men are listening to women, but they cannot talk about Jesus to men in their own congregation? What topics are women not allowed to talk about?

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. If taken in the most literal terms with no interpretation, women would be mute in the church, and would not even be able to talk with other women or children, sing in the choir, pray, etc. Do people against women pastors believe this too?

I doubt you have spoken to any female pastors. Women pastors like any pastors are focused on God so any feelings of rebellion or anger, if any, do not weigh on the heart of the pastor. However, as there are anti-women male pastors, there are probably some anti-male female pastors.

Circumcision in the OT represents more than a simple medical procedure. Until recently, why were many orthodox Jews against female mohels? Circumcision in the OT is like baptism in the NT, it represents a covenant with God. Baptism represents more than a simple immersion in water. It mattered during those times who performed these acts.

I agree. But is the symbolism of circumcision for men only, or for women also? Do women needs their hearts circumcised just as much as men?

I think this probably was an example of sexism against women. Did the bible prohibit women from circumcision, or does God simply make the command that all males be circumcised? Is female circumcision spoken against in the bible? As it is not spoken against in the bible, as the bible gives the example of Zipporah circumcising in a positive light, and as there are other historical sources showing females could perform circumcisions, I've no reason to believe this was for men only. Do you believe that only males can baptise? I would put baptism down as something acceptable for all believers to perform, not only for males or females, as the bible doesn't prohibit females from baptising (to my view).

I think this is right, but I think the important point was about belief, not about being male or female or some other category.

The prohibition is for woman to not have authority over man.
Teaching something to somebody else doesn't all by itself make you an authority over them.
If that were true we'd all be in authority over each other.

I'll listen to any woman who has something to say. Just as I do any brother or sister.
What is prohibited is a woman dispensing the things of God from an office of authority.
I know that doesn't easily register with us today because the offices of pastor and elder have been neutered of authority.
We can take a pastor or we can leave him. It wasn't like that in the beginning.
The man who was the pastor was the pastor in your area, and he ruled with authority.
There was no other place to go. If he was a lousy pastor you just had to endure it.
Woman is prohibited from holding such a position.

Listening to a woman does not put her in a position of authority.
No more than you reading what I post here puts me in authority over you.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 explains what Paul was specifically addressing in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in regard to being silent and in submission in church. Read both passages together and you'll see:

34Women f should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. g

11A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b she must be quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:11-12

She must be quiet and submissive in regard to speaking with church authority.

It's not the end of the world, ladies. Most men don't have that authority either.